http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
THE battle over the nomination of former Missouri Senator John Ashcroft to be
attorney general ranked among the nastiest political fights in recent memory.
Those who opposed Ashcroft depicted him as a bully likely to trample on the
rights of women, minorities, and workers; for their part, supporters accused
his detractors of religious bias.

The battle was waged on editorial pages and over the airwaves; People for the
American Way unveiled a dedicated nationwide advertising campaign to warn
senators about the consequences of voting to confirm their former colleague.
More interesting for private philanthropy is the fact that some of the
wealthiest and most prominent private foundations in the country underwrote
the entrenched interests that went gunning for Ashcroft.

Republicans likened the anti-Ashcroft campaign to a lynch mob, but the
characterization is inapt: the groups were far better organized than that. At
a packed January 9th meeting in Washington, representatives of some 90
groups—including Planned Parenthood, People for the American Way, the
American Bar Association, and staffers from the Democratic congressional
caucus—formulated their strategy. It was audacious to suppose that they could
convince a majority of Ashcroft’s former Senate colleagues to reject his
nomination, but they had to try. How could they wield sufficient influence to
stop Ashcroft even as they stayed within IRS requirements that restrict
political lobbying by nonprofit groups?

According to National Review Online, legal experts were on hand to explain to
attendees how they could “tailor their roles in the stop-Ashcroft movement to
make them appear completely within the law,” by characterizing their
activities as “research” into Ashcroft’s background.

The groups then set to divvying up the assignments. The National Abortion
Rights Action League would lead the charge on “women’s issues,” while People
for the American Way would coordinate the campaign. Money was apparently no
object: At a January 9th news conference (at which Ashcroft was depicted as
soft on hate crimes and even willing to allow rat poison in drinking water),
NARAL executive director Kate Michelman declared, “We’re going to spend
whatever it takes.” An overall figure is not available, but a similar effort
to defeat Robert Bork’s 1987 Supreme Court nomination cost an estimated $10
million.

The groups swung into action, and the early returns were impressive: the
anti-Ashcroft campaign dominated the news for several weeks. Errant Democrats
were quickly brought into line; when Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey
praised Ashcroft’s nomination, he was deluged with phone calls from
constituents urging a “no” vote. Was this a grassroots swelling of support?
Hardly. As the Wall Street Journal reported, a “dozen volunteers settled into
phones at NARAL’s headquarters to call New Jersey abortion rights supporters
and urge them to pressure the senator.”

In the end, the movement to “Bork” Ashcroft drew blood, but not enough. On
February 1st, the Senate approved his nomination 58 to 42, virtually along
party lines.

FUNDING THE FIGHT?
Whatever else the campaign may have lacked, it didn’t fail for want of funds.
Both NARAL and PFAW say they keep their charitable and lobbying arms
separate. Ralph Neas, executive director of PFAW, says all anti-Ashcroft
efforts were funded by PFAW’s 501(c)(4) lobbying arm, which he maintains is
strictly separated from the group’s tax-exempt educational arm. “Not only was
no foundation money used for [opposing Ashcroft] but no 501(c)(3) money [from
the PFAW Foundation] was used. We don’t use it for lobbying.”

Often, lobbying was arguably disguised under the rubric of “education.”
For example, during the Ashcroft campaign, the People for the American Way
Foundation’s Web site, “Right Wing Watch Online”—funded by money from private
foundations—declared that George W. Bush’s campaign promise to be “a uniter,
not a divider” was being “drowned out by his decision to nominate an
ultra-conservative and favorite son of the Religious Right to the position of
Attorney General....”

The site continued that it “is safe to assume that the Religious Right will
do everything in its power to rally its troops in support of Senator Ashcroft
and, in turn, gain significant influence over one of the most powerful
offices in the nation.”

In the end, Right Wing Watch directed
viewers to another PFAW-sponsored site, www.OpposeAshcroft.com, the Internet
hub for anti-Ashcroft forces. There, concerned citizens could read up on
Ashcroft’s background, contact local organizers involved in anti-Ashcroft
activities, and print out a form letter to be sent to members of Congress.

OpposeAshcroft.com clearly envisioned advocacy, and it is not easy to see how
the foundation-funded Right Wing Watch Online is different, especially since
PFAW makes it easy to jump between the two. Yet PFAW legal director Elliot
Mincberg insists that “Right Wing Watch is clearly a 501(c)(3) activity. None
of it is lobbying or urging people to take positions on legislation but
simply providing information on what the right wing has been up to.”

FLIRTING WITH POLITICS
What do the foundations that fund PFAW think about the possibility that their
money may have been used either on anti-Ashcroft activities or to free up
other monies to oppose the former Missouri Senator?

Most want to avoid the question entirely. “I have no idea,” says a
spokesperson for the Packard Foundation, which gave $5 million to the NARAL
Foundation in 1999 alone, when asked if its funding supported anti-Ashcroft
activities. “I don’t know if it relates to that at all. I can’t comment on
that.”

Neither the Turner Foundation ($20,000 to NARAL’s “Choice for America”
campaign) nor the Tisch Foundation—bankrolled by media mogul brothers
Laurence A. Tisch and Preston Robert Tisch—which recently gave $50,000 to the
group, would return phone calls seeking comment. Ditto for the Archer Daniels
Midland Foundation or the Samuel Bronfman Foundation ($25,000 each to PFAW)
or the Slim-Fast Nutritional Foods Foundation, which gave $19,000.

Those foundations that will discuss their grants deny any culpability for the
Ashcroft fight. Allen Greenberg, executive director of the Buffett
Foundation, says he gave NARAL written instructions to use more than $1
million in grants only for the Choice for America campaign. Greenberg insists
the grant is “not political. It had nothing to do with Ashcroft,” and adds
that NARAL’s most recent quarterly report on the grant, for expenditures from
October 1st to December 31st of last year, indicates no money was used to
defeat the Ashcroft nomination.

Yet even some donors and grantees agree that the line between education and
advocacy can be a thin one in a political fight like the Ashcroft nomination.
The Alliance for Justice, a diverse coalition of liberal interest groups that
includes such far-flung outfits as Ralph Nader’s Center for Law in the Public
Interest and Marian Wright Edelman’s Children’s Defense Fund, was a vocal
Ashcroft opponent. Funded in recent years by philanthropic mainstays such as
the Ford and Turner foundations and the Open Society Institute, the alliance
urged the Senate to vote down Ashcroft, whom it called “dangerous and
divisive.”

Though John Pomeranz, the nonprofit advocacy counsel for the alliance, denies
that it received funds specifically for the purpose of blocking the Ashcroft
nomination, he admits that donors “certainly realize the alliance was
publicly opposed to Ashcroft. They certainly have not told us they were
against it.” Geffen Foundation president Andy Spahn is downright grateful for
the ferocious battle waged by PFAW, whose educational arm received $25,000
from his foundation in 1998. “It sends an important signal to the
administration” that Ashcroft’s nomination was so narrowly confirmed, he
says.

Buffett Foundation director Greenberg, who previously worked for Ralph Nader
and Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, says he “agrees 100
percent” that charitable activities can often seem, in the broadest sense of
the word, political. “It would be ridiculous to say we’re not interested in
politics.” But Greenberg agrees that foundations should “stay far away from
the line” between education and advocacy.

In the Ashcroft fight, was that line crossed? Maybe, maybe not. But with the
line becoming fuzzier every day, perhaps it doesn’t
matter.

04/19/01: Creepy People for the American Way04/12/01: Feminist Chung Vows "New Revolution"03/28/01: Liberal chickens come home to roost03/20/01: Teddy's FOBs --- Friends of Bush03/16/01: Missile defense zealots03/13/01: Stonewall Jackson strikes again03/02/01: Only in New Yawk --- NOT! 02/28/01: Jesse the spendthrift? 'Moocher' is more like it!02/21/01: Remember Saint Ralph?02/17/01: Donna Brazile Speaks out on Clarence Thomas02/15/01: Operation PUSH back 02/08/01: Of 'players,' boozers, and your tax dollars02/02/01: Schumer's new insensitivity 01/31/01: The Real Pat Caddell01/26/01: Louts Above the Law 01/18/01: Bush and other GOP converts to racial politics are profoundly misguided12/20/00: Whose America? Here are some election results the "mainstream" press won't report12/14/00: Gore's last smear campaign 12/05/00: Fido v. Fido --- the emerging 'pets' rights' movement12/01/00: Missile defense fog 11/17/00: The Dersh opens his yap one time too many 11/13/00: Gore's biggest missing Florida bloc 11/07/00: Hillary's cruel blow to American pluralism11/01/00: Given Hillary's history should anyone -- other than society's most radical -- be surprised? 10/26/00: Remembering Gus Hall, that 'all-American' kinda guy10/19/00: Hey conservatives, Nader wants your vote!08/24/00: Not So Super-Heroes 08/15/00: Meet Mr. Quotas08/01/00:The Visigoths are coming! The Visigoths are coming! ... Or so the media thinks07/12/00: Geraldo's Food for Thought06/27/00: Time for To Execute a Murderer06/20/00:Hillary and the Cop-bashers: Will the real Ms. Rodham please stand up?06/08/00: For voting rights purposes, should criminal offenders be judged not by the content of their character but the color of their skin?05/10/00: Feminist Majority Rule05/02/00: The Tin Man's Doctor03/07/00: Bob Jones hypocrisy: Liberals are lecturing Americans on "anti-Catholicism"?02/03/00: The red and the Black: The Left-wing Extremist in Bill Bradley’s Camp01/06/00: Looking backwards: An anchorman's version of the 20th Century12/16/99: Yellow journalism for the Pink Lady?12/07/99: How to make the American Psychological Association squirm